Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »Pro-Brexit Parties now at 51 percent, with Anti-Brexit Parties now at 49 percent.
Add to the fact there are 5 million Labour Leaver voters, and we can quite clearly see how the UK is definitely a Leave country now.
Thank goodness for Boris Johnson. If May were still here, Remain parties would have dominated.
Hopefully Farage can convince more of those Labour Leave voters to either a) Back Brexit Party or b) Back Boris' deal; squeezing Labour into nothing short of an irrelevance; a wishful hope for some blissful post-war Attlee-heavy socialism.
Most pollsters speculate that the 5m Labour Leave voters despise the Tory Party and the vast majority only voted to leave on the spur of the moment in 2016 : only a much smaller subset were committed Europhobes / far left types.0 -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/tories-renewed-poll-boost-brexit-party-candidates-pull-out-opinium-observer
When even the Guardian is giving the Tories a 19-point lead, it’s not looking good.
My opinion of the UK electorate has never been lower.
Significant part of the problem has been Labour activists and reps etc not even hiding that they have no meas in their voters or base.
You can't spend years doing that and then expect a turnaround at election time.0 -
The problem is that this going to be a gateway to expand further in Europe.beggars_bush wrote:I look forward to trump healthcare taking over their nhs.
Ireland will be second target, because it has by far the least public (as in non-contributory) system in the EU, also one of the most disorganised too, we're next doors to the UK and there's a strong American link as well (stronger than anywhere else in Europe).
If US corporates succeed bringing NHS down then we're in trouble.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Corbyn has not ruled out a Scottish independence referendum in the second half of his term; a Scottish removal from the Union is more likely under Corbyn than Johnson, who is not obliged to issue a poll.
Second, many Scottish polls do not show a clear majority in favour of Leaving the Union. Then again, I'm not against another poll, it's up to the Scots to decide. But let's not assume that they would leave the Union because of Boris Johnson; he's not going to be an eternal leader, and it would be a very stupid reason for someone to argue. Sturgeon can win a vote across Scotland, but it doesn't make her view the majority opinion. Similarly, not everyone who votes for Sturgeon is automatically in favour of independence. The question is a more complex one than that.
On Welsh independence, 72% in a recent poll would vote against it.
In terms of Northern Ireland, again, there is no clear reason for NI to be given a vote. Again, I'm not arguing against the idea of holding a vote, just that I don't see one being held by Johnson anytime soon.
So for the above reasons, I don't see the Union collapsing in haste, as many here have suggested.
You missed my point. Johnson is clearly hell bent on delivering Brexit, the hardest type, despite the clear dangers is presents to the union.
He has already signed up to and will force through if given a majority, a deal which effectively separates NI from the UK. Something that he himself has stated that no body could agree to. Doesn't that make you worry about what else he will be willing to do in pursuit of his goals.
If he is prepared to sell out an entire part of the union itself, then how can anyone have any confidence in what he would be prepared to do.
Sell out massive parts of the NHS to get a trade deal. Massively increase immigration from India etc to secure deals. Capitulation o workers rights to get investment.
If he doesn't even believe in the union, then what can you say he does believe in?0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »To play devils advocate for a brief moment, I'm left wondering to what extent this entire quagmire of a political issue might have emerged if not for a sustained disconnect between what had previously been solidly 'left-wing' parts of the population and their elected officials. I'm speaking here primarily about the issue of migration, but there are other aspects of it too. Simply put, I'm not sure how exactly the Labour party, which has long conceived of itself as the party of the working man (and to my mind would have better claim to that mantle than the Conservative party) could adopt a programme so in odds with the desire of its base.
If we consider the two major groups of Labour support, the working class and the dependent class, I can't see how immigration at the levels the UK has seen in recent years, was supposed to be seen as a benefit to them. For the working class it has meant pressure on wages and increased competition for housing and public services (for medium and high earning workers it actually been positive). For the dependent class (which often shares a lot with the working class) it means much the same, although I suspect people who are dependent on the state are particularly attuned to seeing the state take on new burdens as it means a sharing/strain of already limited resources.
Of course, it would be simple just to see this as purely a case of the Labour party just discarding its support - the correlation between class and voting intention is by no means watertight, which begs the question of whom it has been delivering for. And to that, I would argue on the question of social issues and to a lesser degree foreign policy, the Labour party has been delivering. Gay rights might be the best example of this, and when we think of foreign policy, following the disastrous decisions of the early 2000s, the Labour party has been arguing with limited success (I'm thinking Miliband's intervention on Syria) for a more restrained foreign policy. The problem is, these successes have been delivering for groups the Labour party wasn't exactly doing badly with in the first place, namely students and the more progressively minded of the upper and middle class, whilst providing a very thin gruel for the working and dependent classes.
More recently, they appear to be doubling down on this bad hand, making great hay over things like Trans rights and gender identity questions and sounding off loudly over outrages in far off lands and refugees, but not really making a convincing case over the economic bread and butter issues. Now this is of course not to ignore the role of the Tory's in all this, but to be fair to the Tory's they tend to be consistent in their policy, namely de-fund, neglect, privatize and shift blame. In some respects it seems like a more coherent centre-right party, arguing for a low-tax low-services economy and making broadly Conservative arguments when it comes to social issues (with some famous exceptions in the Cameron era). They are what you might expect, a party of 'damn the poor, full speed ahead'.
The big problem seems to be that Labour (or perhaps I should be talking of the political left in a wider sense) which would previously position itself more coherently as a high-tax high-services party, has instead cannibalized itself to become a party of student activism, political correctness (the only time I want to use that unhelpful phrase) and niche progressivism, rather than a party with an answer to the economic problems of its principal support base. This is something that is particularly noticeable since the crash, which seems to have inculcated a lot more fiscal conservatism in the population and left charges of 'unnecessary austerity' as feeling flat and empty.
And so here comes the problem - Brexit comes along and at a time when the traditional Labour answers of protecting public services from the Tory's, run up against an anaemic positions on social issues, and an unwillingness to provide a convincing response to a base that is particularly liable to suffer from mass migration. This leaves a lot of traditionally Labour parts of the population without any real interest in the EU one way or another and with a lot of targeted campaigning directed at them about how Leaving will provide more resources for the country, reduce migration burdens and provide that thing they have been craving for so long - control. Hardly a surprise the result that emerges does so.
What is to my mind a surprise is that this same pattern has been continuing on since the referendum and that anyone has been expecting a different result. Now in deference to Labour, they are in an unenviable position, being unable to really rein in their attitudes on social issues without alienating the notoriously tantrum-prone student vote, with their traditional charges of defending public services starting to fall flat and with their inability to make a massive sea change shift on migration in the midst of the Brexit debate. I suppose my point is that this almost seems like just rewards for the connivance of a political party against the interests of its core support base for so long. It just seems particularly galling that the upshot of this sharp riposte to a political class that has failed them for so long, is going to be (to the best of my deduction) more pain and suffering for those working and dependent classes who have been dismayed for so long.
Good post. Think you've nailed a lot of the core issues challenging labour and its ongoing relationship with its traditional base and changing demographics.
But i think it is complex. I'm not convinced labour should be pushing further to the extremes to go harder on immigration, just because those working class areas are so susceptible to the lies and misinformation spread by the likes of farage. There is surely a humane way of formulating a fair immigration policy which is what i think they should be doing, as opposed to simply aiming to appeal to one target group.
I'd quibble a bit with the take on labours policies too. How effective they might be is another matter, but if they're not aimed at improving the lives of working people and lower earners, then i dont know what they are. Granted, they dont feel all that radical or "loony leftist" to me at all, but they seem about as radical and leftist as the uk would be willing to accept i feel.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Corbyn has not ruled out a Scottish independence referendum in the second half of his term; a Scottish removal from the Union is more likely under Corbyn than Johnson, who is not obliged to issue a poll.
Second, many Scottish polls do not show a clear majority in favour of Leaving the Union. Then again, I'm not against another poll, it's up to the Scots to decide. But let's not assume that they would leave the Union because of Boris Johnson; he's not going to be an eternal leader, and it would be a very stupid reason for someone to argue. Sturgeon can win a vote across Scotland, but it doesn't make her view the majority opinion. Similarly, not everyone who votes for Sturgeon is automatically in favour of independence. The question is a more complex one than that.
On Welsh independence, 72% in a recent poll would vote against it.
In terms of Northern Ireland, again, there is no clear reason for NI to be given a vote. Again, I'm not arguing against the idea of holding a vote, just that I don't see one being held by Johnson anytime soon.
So for the above reasons, I don't see the Union collapsing in haste, as many here have suggested.
You missed my point. Johnson is clearly hell bent on delivering Brexit, the hardest type, despite the clear dangers is presents to the union.
He has already signed up to and will force through if given a majority, a deal which effectively separates NI from the UK. Something that he himself has stated that no body could agree to. Doesn't that make you worry about what else he will be willing to do in pursuit of his goals.
If he is prepared to sell out an entire part of the union itself, then how can anyone have any confidence in what he would be prepared to do.
Sell out massive parts of the NHS to get a trade deal. Massively increase immigration from India etc to secure deals. Capitulation o workers rights to get investment.
If he doesn't even believe in the union, then what can you say he does believe in?0 -
I say bring it back on. If vast % of English (yes English) people are that uninformed / brainwashed / gullible / delusional then be it.
Scotland will go in few years time and then we'll moving towards UI rapidly. It will be challenging.
If the WA is passed as is I'd say the government should start bilateral talks with the Scottish government, there's a lot of room for cooperation and if they go independent I can see both parties could help each other with the transition.
Also start talking about the UI, just to begin the conversation and to brainstorm through all the possible options. There's no harm to start the process.0 -
But Labour are addressing the fundamental problem with all the issues you mention. Namely that the Tory party have starved the services of money.
The issue is not more people, regardless of where they came from, it's that no new resources have been provided to deal with the extra people. The issue would be the same, although less easier to blame on others, simply through population growth.
But Labour's manifesto calls for massive investment in schools, NHS, housing etc.
They haven't been in government so have been unable to do anything. So give them the ability0 -
Irish Praetorian wrote: »To play devils advocate for a brief moment, I'm left wondering to what extent this entire quagmire of a political issue might have emerged if not for a sustained disconnect between what had previously been solidly 'left-wing' parts of the population and their elected officials. I'm speaking here primarily about the issue of migration, but there are other aspects of it too. Simply put, I'm not sure how exactly the Labour party, which has long conceived of itself as the party of the working man (and to my mind would have better claim to that mantle than the Conservative party) could adopt a programme so in odds with the desire of its base.
I think you identified the cause of this disconnect yourself: the "grass roots" political landscape shifted dramatically, with student and "minority" votes becoming more valuable as this cohort drew energy and inspiration from various worldwide movements. But whereas other countries' electoral systems would have allowed these groups to coalesce around a new party/leader - and this would naturally be a left/left-of-centre party - FPTP effectively stripped this electorate of a meaningful vote, so their only path to power was to align themselves with the Labour Party, and Labour was only too happy to accept a wave of new voters.
To me, this is part and parcel of the "Brexit Britain" quagmire. There's a absolute determination on the part of Brexiters/Leavers - regardless of whether they're of a Labour or Tory leaning - to resist changes that are forced on them from the outside world. It's the classic island mentality, which rather ironically, you don't see so much on the smaller island of Ireland (I'm thinking of the massive "come home to vote" migration at the time of the gay marriage referendum).
So yes, while Labour was happy to take the votes of the "globally aware" they failed see that this kind of openness to the Big Bad World was going to terrify their traditional base. I don't think they could ever have convinced the "dependent classes" (nice term) that the taxes paid by Wojciech or Ahmed were funding their dependent lifestyle, but it should have been possible to spin EU migration (at least) as a positive for the others.
FWIW, I think the Tories are heading down exactly the same cul-de-sac with their idea that The People are in love with the idea of a Global Britain, and regardless of how many times Johnson repeats it, getting Brexit done isn't going to solve these fundamental problems with the British electoral process, and a society that is no longer split Left-Right, but into one outward looking, adventurous camp and another that wants bigger better walls around the island.0 -
If he doesn't even believe in the union, then what can you say he does believe in?
Personally, I think the Johnson Deal does split the UK, but that it offers some degree of compromise for the EU, as well as offering a vote for Northern Ireland to act upon.
That technicality aside, Johnson is a One Nation Conservative and I can't foresee him foregoing that in favour of some mad political future.
It just doesn't hold water; it's speculation-on-steroids.
As I said, you're far more likely to have the UK split up under a Corbyn regime than a Johnson Administration.0 -
Advertisement
-
I say bring it back on. If vast % of English (yes English) people are that uninformed / brainwashed / gullible / delusional then be it.
Scotland will go in few years time and then we'll moving towards UI rapidly. It will be challenging.
If the WA is passed as is I'd say the government should start bilateral talks with the Scottish government, there's a lot of room for cooperation and if they go independent I can see both parties could help each other with the transition.
Also start talking about the UI, just to begin the conversation and to brainstorm through all the possible options. There's no harm to start the process.
Fintan O'Toole has said all along that Brexit is all about English nationalism.
You could argue that a vote for the Tories in this election is a vote to break up the UK, perhaps that's what the English voters secretly want (even if the party leadership claim to be totally opposed to this).0 -
What? So Johnson splits the union but any suggestion that he is open to splitting the union is speculation?
It is exactly what he has delivered. And he is actively going against the wishes of Scotland, which Carrie's a massive risks of hastening their seeking of independence.
And you so no issue with Johnson claiming earlier that no PM could ever think of splitting the Union, and then doing just that simply to get what he wants?0 -
The part I don’t understand is Johnson and the Tories blatantly lying saying they’re going to throw billions at ...all the things they’re directly responsible for cutting back on.
How are people falling for it? I simply can’t believe they’re still ahead in polls when the majority of people have suffered in many ways through their austerity policies and cutbacks0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »I think the turnout for this election will be interesting. A lower turn out would seem likely which you'd imagine might favour the tories. Labour need to go into turbo drive to get youth vote out, seems only chance to me.
Squeezing the lib dem vote has to be their main objective.
Boris has done a fine job doing similar to the brexit party, the horrid performance from Swinson gives them an opening.
Up to the Labour to figure the rest.0 -
The thing about Labour heartland leave voters is that its a nonsense. They won't vote or will vote Labour. They'll never vote Tories.Strazdas wrote:Most pollsters speculate that the 5m Labour Leave voters despise the Tory Party and the vast majority only voted to leave on the spur of the moment in 2016 : only a much smaller subset were committed Europhobes / far left types.
Also if you analyse the Labour held high % leave areas properly you'll see that Leave won because of Tory voters not because of Labour votes. Also, there was a surge of voters who simply don't vote and won't vote again. So telling that because a constituency voted 60% Leave and is Labour held means that it will become Tory now simply because it voted leave is very speculative.0 -
What? So Johnson splits the union but any suggestion that he is open to splitting the union is speculation?
It is exactly what he has delivered. And he is actively going against the wishes of Scotland, which Carrie's a massive risks of hastening their seeking of independence.
And you so no issue with Johnson claiming earlier that no PM could ever think of splitting the Union, and then doing just that simply to get what he wants?
Let's assume Johnson - with a One Nation Conservative manifesto - attains a relatively large majority.- Why would he permit a 2nd Scottish independence referendum?
- Why would he permit a Welsh independence referendum?
- Why would he permit a vote on Irish re-unification?
Otherwise, yes, it's baseless speculation.0 -
I suspect that the Scots won't have balls. They're big on talking but I'm not 100% sure they'll make the move, it's flip a coin thing I think.Strazdas wrote:You could argue that a vote for the Tories in this election is a vote to break up the UK, perhaps that's what the English voters secretly want (even if the party leadership claim to be totally opposed to this).0 -
Stop moaning ffs wrote: »The part I don’t understand is Johnson and the Tories blatantly lying saying they’re going to throw billions at ...all the things they’re does fly responsible for cutting back on.
How are people falling for it? I simply can’t believe they’re still ahead in polls when the majority of people have suffered in many ways through their austerity policies and cutbacks
Part of it comes from the arrogance of Remain campaigners who either argue, or imply, that:- Leave voters "didn't know what they were voting for"; code for "stupid and ignorant people". Even your own comment, "How are people falling for it?", implies that they are deluded or stupid in some form. It's incredibly patronising language.
- "Austerity" is a Left-leaning propaganda term; in reality, it means managed finances. Most people recognise you cannot egregiously spend your way out of debt and that an element of restraint is both reasonable and desirable.
- Few people want a terrorist-sympathiser and that cabinet in power, who have opposed the UK or, in Abbott's words, "a victory against the UK is a victory for us all". Let's not ignore the anti-Semitism scandal either.
- What Corbyn is proposing is plucked from the sky - free everything! That is itself unrealistic. It's a fantasy socialist utopia; it will never happen.
- People want to respect the 2016 referendum result and conclude this phase of Brexit; many on both Leave and Remain sides are coalescing under Prime Minister Johnson. The Revocationists and more delay, 2nd referendum etc. are falling in the polls.
0 -
Squeezing the lib dem vote has to be their main objective.
Boris has done a fine job doing similar to the brexit party, the horrid performance from Swinson gives them an opening.
Up to the Labour to figure the rest.
Swinsons dire performance a big help for sure, never thought revoke policy was a great one but didnt see it seemingly backfiring quite so badly either.
Closer to polling day, i think a lot of itchy feet remain voters might shift to the labour fold, especially if the dangers of a no deal brexit are laid firmly on the line. Lot still to play for i believe, regardless of what polls suggest.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Part of it comes from the arrogance of Remain campaigners who either argue, or imply, that:
- Leave voters "didn't know what they were voting for"; code for "stupid and ignorant people". Even your own comment, "How are people falling for it?", implies that they are deluded or stupid in some form. It's incredibly patronising language.
- "Austerity" is a Left-leaning propaganda term; in reality, it means managed finances. Most people recognise you cannot egregiously spend your way out of debt and that an element of restraint is both reasonable and desirable.
- Few people want a terrorist-sympathiser and that cabinet in power, who have opposed the UK or, in Abbott's words, "a victory against the UK is a victory for us all". Let's not ignore the anti-Semitism scandal either.
- What Corbyn is proposing is plucked from the sky - free everything! That is itself unrealistic. It's a fantasy socialist utopia; it will never happen.
- People want to respect the 2016 referendum result and conclude this phase of Brexit; many on both Leave and Remain sides are coalescing under Prime Minister Johnson. The Revocationists and more delay, 2nd referendum etc. are falling in the polls.
So remainers are responsible fo a decade of cutbacks. By the Tories.
All due respect but it seems You live in alternative reality0 -
Advertisement
-
Stop moaning ffs wrote: »So remainers are responsible fo a decade of cutbacks. By the Tories.
All due respect but it seems You live in alternative reality
I never even suggested that.
I'm saying that "austerity" is a propaganda term for "managed finances". Most people appreciate that need and do not view "austerity" through the same lens that you do.
Moreover, you didn't address any of the wider points I made.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »[*]"Austerity" is a Left-leaning propaganda term; in reality, it means managed finances. Most people recognise you cannot egregiously spend your way out of debt and that an element of restraint is both reasonable and desirable
.
Austerity responsible for an estimated 130,000 deaths = "managed finances".
I think we've just found the updated version of "collateral damage" here.0 -
Boris Johnson in Shropshire revealing the Tory party policy programme once he has finished bashing everyone else.
First promise made that will be broken - no raising of taxes.
Wow, one lie and misrepresentation after another.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »Austerity responsible for an estimated 130,000 deaths = "managed finances".
I think we've just found the updated version of "collateral damage" here.
Absolute nonsense.
Please go back and read that "study", which conclusively says there is no evidence for that conclusion and the study should not be taken to mean that.
That's from the report itself, not me. That statement is thrown out and repeated ad nauseum by those of a Left-wing disposition, without having actually read it. I mean, this is not acceptable.
Please consult that document for further information.
Thank you.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I never even suggested that.
I'm saying that "austerity" is a propaganda term for "managed finances". Most people appreciate that need and do not view "austerity" through the same lens that you do.
Moreover, you didn't address any of the wider points I made.
Can’t respond coz it’s all hyperbole and propaganda.
Is tony Blair a terrorist sympathizer for sitting down with SF and Ira? Or Mo Mowlam for that matter?
We wouldn’t have a GFA without groundwork laid by the likes of Corbyn and ps he was sitting down with loyalist paramilitaries at the very same time.
It was to open a dialogue.
But yeah somehow he’s a terrorist sympathizer.
Would you give over0 -
Stop moaning ffs wrote: »The part I don’t understand is Johnson and the Tories blatantly lying saying they’re going to throw billions at ...all the things they’re directly responsible for cutting back on.
How are people falling for it? I simply can’t believe they’re still ahead in polls when the majority of people have suffered in many ways through their austerity policies and cutbacks
What I don't understand is how people are falling for "it" when so far, the Tories' main campaign message seems to have been "we're not Labour" (exhibit B: eskimo's reply .... :rolleyes: )
Neither the polled voters nor the media's finest interviewers seem to be able to make the connection and hold on to it that getting Brexit "done" will hammer the British economy and see the basis of all that investment evaporate. I heard a small snippet of Sophie Ridge this morning where she looked like she was going to take Sajid Javid to task on this point ... but when he brushed away her concerns saying it was only the uncertainty that was causing problems, she gave up.0 -
But Labour are addressing the fundamental problem with all the issues you mention. Namely that the Tory party have starved the services of money.
The issue is not more people, regardless of where they came from, it's that no new resources have been provided to deal with the extra people. The issue would be the same, although less easier to blame on others, simply through population growth.
But Labour's manifesto calls for massive investment in schools, NHS, housing etc.
They haven't been in government so have been unable to do anything. So give them the ability
Oh I don't doubt that, by which I mean I don't doubt that Labour remains committed to governing in such a way that means services receive more funding than they might otherwise get under the Tory's (by in large).
My point is that, this has always been the case with Labour, and the difference is now there are other factors at play which are nullifying/outstripping those claims. The end result being those commitments no longer inspire as much confidence among voters as they used to.0 -
Kindly please present a study proving otherwise.eskimohunt wrote:Please go back and read that "study", which conclusively says there is no evidence for that conclusion and the study should not be taken to mean that.
And a link confirming your claim as well.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Part of it comes from the arrogance of Remain campaigners
That 'arrogance' is a construct confined to the limits of your own mind. They dont share your views: that's their right, that doesn't make them arrogant.
However, the sheer blinding stupidity of large swathes of the pro Brexit camp makes mild smugness almost unavoidable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kindly please present a study proving otherwise.
And a link confirming your claim as well.
This was already debunked several weeks ago.This is not an estimate of how many could have been avoided, the authors stressed. Nor is it an estimate of the amount of deaths every year.
While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case. Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.
There is no conclusion at all.
It's totally taken out of all context, and shamelessly put out as "full fact" by pro-Left supporters.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement